“Well written and an interesting perspective.” Clan Rossi --- “Your article is too good about Japanese business pushing nuclear power.” Consulting Group --- “Thank you for the article. It was quite useful for me to wrap up things quickly and effectively.” Taylor Johnson, Credit Union Lobby Management --- “Great information! I love your blog! You always post interesting things!” Jonathan N.

Friday, June 8, 2012

CNN’s Hosts: Off with Their Heads!

Hitting record-low ratings
among total viewers and in the 25-54 age demographic, CNN had its overall
lowest-rated month in April 2012 since August 2001. In May 2012, the network
hit a 20-year low for total viewers during primetime viewing. Something had
gone seriously wrong. Perhaps the easiest move when a company takes a nose-dive
is to fire the top. Accordingly, Time Warner executives were thinking of
replacing the president of CNN Worldwide. While taking off the top might make
sense in government because the entire administration is apt to change,
business firms tend to be more entrenched even when under new management.

In the case of CNN, the
culprit may have been bad hiring decisions. If so, the solution would lie in replacing
the staff who made the hires as well as the “personalities” hired. In an age of
“media personalities” wherein opinion typically accompanies journalistic
interviewing, it is only natural to hire people who have strong personalities.
It is far less common to witness interviewees going after hosts in terms of
their personalities. In May 2012, Donald Trump laid into Wolf Blitzer during an
interview. The real-estate magnet told the journalist that the introduction was
inappropriate, but then added a personal insult in remarking, but “that’s okay,
because I’ve gotten to know you over the years.” It would appear that Trump and
others “in the loop” having had years of experience with Blitzer had come to
the conclusion that he could not be trusted. The general public—meaning the
viewers—could only surmise on the accusation, knowing only the “on-screen”
media personality.

Years before Trump’s
revelation, I had already glimpsed a bit of the man behind the curtain when
Blitzer wished everyone “a happy holiday and happy New Year.” The meaning of
this statement struck me as suggestive of a Jewish prejudice against Christmas,
as if the U.S. holiday were only the religious holiday celebrated by
Christians. I also saw footage of Blitzer at a Hollywood event as he was
desperately trying to get interviewed by a journalist.

My sense that CNN “stars”
might be too self-absorbed got a shot in the arm when Piers Morgan admitted
on-camera while covering Queen Elizabeth II’s sixty years on the state’s throne
that he really wanted to be king. That was too much even for one of Morgan’s
co-host, who said in exasperation, “Oh, Piers!” Strangely, he had previously
said that he was glad to be a subject (of the Queen). Might it be that pride in being a subject is
really a subterfuge for a desire to be king? Piers’ imagining of himself as
king of the island (an interesting fantasy, given that he had been implicated
in the Murdoch hacking scandal) was revealing.
Two days before, his coverage had been reduced to drawing attention to the
rain—a constant refrain during the parade of boats. He even pointed out that
there was water on his seat (as if any of the viewers cared). Moreover, he was
careful to stress everything that was distinctively British, while generalizing
everything American across fifty republics (Britain is one republic). My
instinctive reaction was to ask, well
then why don’t you stay over there?

I was not at all surprised
to learn of CNN’s low ratings. I suspected that even if viewers had not been
aware of it, they had probably reacted in reaction to the arrogance of the
major hosts. People were voting with their remote controls even if they
couldn’t put their finger on what was behind their decisions. Rather than limit
the change to the top brass at CNN, Time Warner executives would have been
wiser to demand that the major “stars” of CNN be replaced en masse. Owning a subsidiary does not mean that oversight is
limited to the subsidiary’s executive suite, at least if the parent company is
being capably run.